On Mon, 21 Jul 2025 at 18:33, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2025, Fuad Tabba wrote: > > > The below diff applies on top. I'm guessing there may be some intermediate > > > ugliness (I haven't mapped out exactly where/how to squash this throughout the > > > series, and there is feedback relevant to future patches), but IMO this is a much > > > cleaner resting state (see the diff stats). > > > > So just so that I am clear, applying the diff below to the appropriate > > patches would address all the concerns that you have mentioned in this > > email? > > Yes? It should, I just don't want to pinky swear in case I botched something. Other than this patch not applying, nah, I think it's all good ;P. I guess base-commit: 9eba3a9ac9cd5922da7f6e966c01190f909ed640 is somewhere in a local tree of yours. There are quite a few conflicts and I don't think it would build even if based on the right tree, e.g., KVM_CAP_GUEST_MEMFD_MMAP is a rename of KVM_CAP_GMEM_MMAP, rather an addition of an undeclared identifier. That said, I think I understand what you mean, and I can apply the spirit of this patch. Stay tuned for v16. /fuad > But goofs aside, yes, if the end result looks like what was the below, I'm happy. > Again, things might get ugly in the process, i.e. might be temporariliy gross, > but that's ok (within reason).
